I choose to focus on the article that shows the Single unhappy unmarried stereotype.
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/femsingle.html
Okay so today we look at this article and can't help but laugh, albeit nervously, at what this seems to represent. Here we have a case of not biological or home environment causing disease but an actual institution of society (marriage) or the lack therof causing a disease to be diagnosed. Marriage is such a rediculous topic to use as a way to diagnose mental illness and this may seem obvious but studies have actually come out now proving how marriage actually benefits the mental health of men at the cost of a woman's mental health in later life, that is to say that men who are not married have a correlation with suffering higher rates of depression, anxiety, and other such treatable mental conditions than do women who remain unmarried on top of this most of the health benefits that are claimed to be provided by marriage are shown to only occur in favor of men. So the question becomes then ,"Why as a society are we pushing women to get married through the use of chastity balls, purity rings, and stigmatization of being single over 30."
Upon looking at the first of these events what we have is the charity ball. A sanctioned event where young men pledge that they will not defile the purity of another man's future wife. The disturbing thing about this trend however is that it's not about keeping men pure, it's about not tainting women. It would seem that logically if you cared about purity of youth you would be concerned with both male and female constituents of the population but this slant towards "safe guarding" the virginity of women is so skewed in all of these events that you can't help but see the double standard of when young men have sex they are "lucky" and when young women have sex they were either "tricked" by some unsavory man/woman or she is deemed a slut, enter the virgin whore complex we see in modern society.
So how to fix this? Well for starters lets take a good hard look at how we evaluate and judge people in society. Some of society's standards are there for a reason, it's generally frowned upon to lie, steal, or kill howver other equally respected ideas in society could do with some changing such as normative behavior of the genders. Why can't a woman be a player or stud, if she is considered promiscuous we call her a slut, skank, homewrecker, and several other horrible names but we simoultaneously also praise men for carrying on the same behavior (insert Tiger Woods reference here) and by creating this gender divide in behavior we create the possibility of creating a problem with people when in reality it is our PERCEPTION of the person that is truly the problem. In closing these companies who market solutions to our problems can only do so if they can convince you there is something fundamentally wrong with you, don't be so eager to believe the hype.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Pop/Soda-America, and you.
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/5pepsi.html
Have you ever been plagued by a nasty flu? Bed-ridden with a seasonal cold?
The answer is obvious, PEPSI, dude. Is a fantastical effervescent delight that "is light, never too sweet." This was an obviously ridiculous remedy to be so vaguely presented as Rx: Pepsi ad libitum, but I guess I could see the appeal when it does occasionally help with stomach ailments.
I found this to be an interesting concept long ago, when I saw Christopher Walken heating up Dr Pepper in the movie "Blast From The Past." Not a fantastic movie, but I'm a huge Walken fan so I've seen it once or twice. Anyway, after watching the movie I had to try it, turns out it's not that bad at all, but the question is, is there any medicinal value to it?---I'm aware of how obvious it seems Dr Pepper is not a healthy alternative to anything, and just to clear the air, I don't even drink pop, but apparently the incorporation of ginger into so many popular soft-drinks has instilled this little fallacy into more minds than mine...seen here.
After doing a little research, I found out that all purpose "soda" was originally concocted up by small town pharmacists, and was packaged as a medicinal tonic, and Dr Pepper is named after Dr. Charles T. Pepper, an 1855 graduate of the University of Virginia Medical School who lived in Rural Retreat, Virginia in the late 1800s.
---Beyond that, I think the most miraculous thing about the stuff is how firmly imprinted it is in our society. Can you imagine when the aliens come and we serve them our traditional beverage? It reminds me of an episode of Bear Gryllis, where he was offered up a hot pot of corn liquor by the Brunka tribes of Costa Rica.
This ad was one of the few that didn't boast an impossible medical remedy, it simply presented Pepsi as an Rx. So for that ambiguity I can't get too upset, but it is interesting to see what some people truly care about...for instance this guy.
I think the fight against POP will be more and more prevalent with the steady rise in diabetes in America, and plenty of sites like this will pop up..(who knew the healthy alternative to pop could be...just water!?)
Have you ever been plagued by a nasty flu? Bed-ridden with a seasonal cold?
The answer is obvious, PEPSI, dude. Is a fantastical effervescent delight that "is light, never too sweet." This was an obviously ridiculous remedy to be so vaguely presented as Rx: Pepsi ad libitum, but I guess I could see the appeal when it does occasionally help with stomach ailments.
I found this to be an interesting concept long ago, when I saw Christopher Walken heating up Dr Pepper in the movie "Blast From The Past." Not a fantastic movie, but I'm a huge Walken fan so I've seen it once or twice. Anyway, after watching the movie I had to try it, turns out it's not that bad at all, but the question is, is there any medicinal value to it?---I'm aware of how obvious it seems Dr Pepper is not a healthy alternative to anything, and just to clear the air, I don't even drink pop, but apparently the incorporation of ginger into so many popular soft-drinks has instilled this little fallacy into more minds than mine...seen here.
After doing a little research, I found out that all purpose "soda" was originally concocted up by small town pharmacists, and was packaged as a medicinal tonic, and Dr Pepper is named after Dr. Charles T. Pepper, an 1855 graduate of the University of Virginia Medical School who lived in Rural Retreat, Virginia in the late 1800s.
---Beyond that, I think the most miraculous thing about the stuff is how firmly imprinted it is in our society. Can you imagine when the aliens come and we serve them our traditional beverage? It reminds me of an episode of Bear Gryllis, where he was offered up a hot pot of corn liquor by the Brunka tribes of Costa Rica.
This ad was one of the few that didn't boast an impossible medical remedy, it simply presented Pepsi as an Rx. So for that ambiguity I can't get too upset, but it is interesting to see what some people truly care about...for instance this guy.
I think the fight against POP will be more and more prevalent with the steady rise in diabetes in America, and plenty of sites like this will pop up..(who knew the healthy alternative to pop could be...just water!?)
Shire US inc. …your ADHD Support Company
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/femadhd.html
These advertisements by Shire US Inc. boast the connection between depression, divorce and ADHD in adults. The first ad claims adults with ADHD are nearly two times more likely to have been divorced which is backed up by one study. The results are from a survey comparing 500 ADHD adults and 501 non-ADHD adults. Nonetheless, there is no other evidence to back up the claim. This sole study is the only ‘proof’ the advertisers have to make such a bold statement about the connection between divorce and ADHD. The slogans ‘broken promises’ and ‘the consequences may be serious’ imply that ADHD is the main factor involved in a divorce and that one should go to their website for more information and to take a test for self-diagnosis. I wanted to take the test myself, but the website does not exist anymore and directs to http://adhdfraud.org/. Interesting name for a website.
The second ad claims that ADHD is found in 32% of adults with a depressive disorder. This is clearly aimed at a female demographic due to the pink background and a picture of a woman with her arms crossed. The message is clear: the connection between depression and ADHD is most commonly found in females. However, the one study cited is gender neutral with an age range of 18-44. Again, it is disappointing that a sole study was used to support a bold claim. At least the study surveyed 3199 adults as opposed to the other which surveyed 1001. The line ‘I’m depressed… Could it be ADHD?’ makes a very explicit implication that ADHD is the cause of depression in females. The ad later encourages its demographic to visit www.depressionandadhd.com which is another website that does not exist anymore. Huh. This is fascinating to me because these ads are only five years old.
Luckily, Dr. Bonkers has screencaps at http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/simpleadhd.html
Most of the screencaps from Shire US Inc. advertise various drugs which alter the balance of some brain chemicals. Right after the company admits that the cause of ADHD is unknown. Apparently this is all conjecture. Now my first impulse is to ridicule the lack of concrete evidence, but then I recall my former peers who took Adderall and other ADHD drugs as children. The changes in their behaviors were remarkable and I cannot believe it was solely due to a placebo effect. However, the language used in these screencaps and the two previous advertisements is deplorable. The company claims it does not have a hidden agenda, which is ludicrous given the extreme bias language found throughout the bold claims mentioned earlier. In one screencap, the company demeans the naysayers for the sole purpose of pressuring individuals to take their drugs. Moreover, they call their drugs ‘medicine’ to sound safe and friendly. How nice.
These advertisements by Shire US Inc. boast the connection between depression, divorce and ADHD in adults. The first ad claims adults with ADHD are nearly two times more likely to have been divorced which is backed up by one study. The results are from a survey comparing 500 ADHD adults and 501 non-ADHD adults. Nonetheless, there is no other evidence to back up the claim. This sole study is the only ‘proof’ the advertisers have to make such a bold statement about the connection between divorce and ADHD. The slogans ‘broken promises’ and ‘the consequences may be serious’ imply that ADHD is the main factor involved in a divorce and that one should go to their website for more information and to take a test for self-diagnosis. I wanted to take the test myself, but the website does not exist anymore and directs to http://adhdfraud.org/. Interesting name for a website.
The second ad claims that ADHD is found in 32% of adults with a depressive disorder. This is clearly aimed at a female demographic due to the pink background and a picture of a woman with her arms crossed. The message is clear: the connection between depression and ADHD is most commonly found in females. However, the one study cited is gender neutral with an age range of 18-44. Again, it is disappointing that a sole study was used to support a bold claim. At least the study surveyed 3199 adults as opposed to the other which surveyed 1001. The line ‘I’m depressed… Could it be ADHD?’ makes a very explicit implication that ADHD is the cause of depression in females. The ad later encourages its demographic to visit www.depressionandadhd.com which is another website that does not exist anymore. Huh. This is fascinating to me because these ads are only five years old.
Luckily, Dr. Bonkers has screencaps at http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/simpleadhd.html
Most of the screencaps from Shire US Inc. advertise various drugs which alter the balance of some brain chemicals. Right after the company admits that the cause of ADHD is unknown. Apparently this is all conjecture. Now my first impulse is to ridicule the lack of concrete evidence, but then I recall my former peers who took Adderall and other ADHD drugs as children. The changes in their behaviors were remarkable and I cannot believe it was solely due to a placebo effect. However, the language used in these screencaps and the two previous advertisements is deplorable. The company claims it does not have a hidden agenda, which is ludicrous given the extreme bias language found throughout the bold claims mentioned earlier. In one screencap, the company demeans the naysayers for the sole purpose of pressuring individuals to take their drugs. Moreover, they call their drugs ‘medicine’ to sound safe and friendly. How nice.
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/femtryher.html
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, where to even begin with this one.
This ad reminds me of a quote on our "age of anxiety" text, quoted by a physician: "Get the the female tranquilized and get her out of here!"
The thing that gets me about this ad is the way the hypothetical patient is treated. "Try her on Stelazine". It treats the drug as if it were meant to make the therapists life easier, rather than actually help with whatever issue the client may be facing.
Also, this ad rather nicely ties in with the idea of women being trapped in situations where they are "supposed" to feel comfortable. "Excessive use of the telephone is often symptomatic of chronic neurotic anxiety". I'm sorry, what? This ad plays upon the tendency to demonize malcontent women. Imagine someone who must spend almost all her time in the house, the phone being her only reliable contact with the outside world. I think we're making a bit of a correlation/causation error here. Maybe if she wasn't stuck in a world where the phone was her only outlet for interpersonal communication, then gee I don't know, maybe she wouldn't be symptomatic of chronic neurotic anxiety?
This ad just screams the idea of women being an "inconvenience", hence the quote at the top of the page.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, where to even begin with this one.
This ad reminds me of a quote on our "age of anxiety" text, quoted by a physician: "Get the the female tranquilized and get her out of here!"
The thing that gets me about this ad is the way the hypothetical patient is treated. "Try her on Stelazine". It treats the drug as if it were meant to make the therapists life easier, rather than actually help with whatever issue the client may be facing.
Also, this ad rather nicely ties in with the idea of women being trapped in situations where they are "supposed" to feel comfortable. "Excessive use of the telephone is often symptomatic of chronic neurotic anxiety". I'm sorry, what? This ad plays upon the tendency to demonize malcontent women. Imagine someone who must spend almost all her time in the house, the phone being her only reliable contact with the outside world. I think we're making a bit of a correlation/causation error here. Maybe if she wasn't stuck in a world where the phone was her only outlet for interpersonal communication, then gee I don't know, maybe she wouldn't be symptomatic of chronic neurotic anxiety?
This ad just screams the idea of women being an "inconvenience", hence the quote at the top of the page.
She may never marry...
This ad particularly disgusting to me.
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/femsingle.html
First of all, it suggests that a woman must find companionship in a man in order to be happy. Being single or independent is apparently unacceptable and creates unhappiness. Not only must you marry, but you must marry young (35 is too old) and soon, and to a man. Jan is at a loss, she has low self-esteem, she is psychoneurotic. She is identified as an 'unmarried." I realize that this is the value and the norm of another time, but I am surprised to see that it is from 1970! I would have guessed somewhere in the 1940s or 1950s, but the 60s and 70s were a much more liberal period, at least from what I've read and heard. Would a 35-year-old unmarried man be described the same way? Or would he just be looking for the right one, or too busy and successful to be tied down.
The ad itself is pretty interesting also. Jan is shown in pictures throughout the years with a different man in every other picture, or her father (the only man in her life.) The title describes her as '35, single, and pschyo-neurotic,' while the pictures describe her as lonely, unworthy, and desperate. The lady in these pictures is out and about with the various men, while making domestic/family/happy memories with her father. And after describing her, we see that this drug can be given to women to relieve the neurotic sense of failure and anxiety, obviously put on by women in these conditions. Its aim is to treat patients with depression, apprehension, agitation, etc. and is implying - with this particular ad- that unfit, unmarried women experience all of the above. Women are not successful and independent, and the only goals the have are to be happily married and a future mother. And at a young age. With Valium, these misfits can feel just like all of married champions.
Valium
Ad
I think there are two disturbing parts of this article one is the marketing and the other is that they are suggesting valium to be given out for anxiety.
To specifically advertise valium to the "older" (yet only 35 year old), single woman is just pushing the stereotype that a woman has to be married by a certain age. It also seems that the manufacturers of the drug rare trying to get doctors to prescribe it for any single woman over the age of 35. I also cant imagine taking them advocating valium for anxiety seeing as it is a highly addictive drug.
I think there are two disturbing parts of this article one is the marketing and the other is that they are suggesting valium to be given out for anxiety.
To specifically advertise valium to the "older" (yet only 35 year old), single woman is just pushing the stereotype that a woman has to be married by a certain age. It also seems that the manufacturers of the drug rare trying to get doctors to prescribe it for any single woman over the age of 35. I also cant imagine taking them advocating valium for anxiety seeing as it is a highly addictive drug.
Bed Wetter!
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/kidbedwetting.html
I have so many issues with this ad. It pulled at my heartstrings, probably because of a personal history I don't feel like mentioning here. Unlike many of the other Bonker's Institute ads, the concept behind the ad's meaning still seams so prevalent, although the diagnosis for bed wetting has changed. Perhaps ads like this matter because they helped instill in our society this view that a child is "bad" when a child wets the bed, a sign that the embarrassment they feel stems from something other than a small bladder.
First, I'd like to know who the "physically normal older child" pertains to. No age is specified, but the little boy in the ad seems to be about 8 or 10 years old. What is the correct age when you need to stop wetting the bed? And aside from the "alleviations of psychic tensions" this ad has to description of what effect the drug actually has, or the mechanisms the drug uses. Also, this ad states that Equanil has a 68% success rate, but gives no mention of the plethora of side effects!
Secondly, is my child's occasional bed wetting a justification for tranquilizing him? I feel not, especially with side effects like rash, itching, easy bruising, bloody nose, unusual bleeding, tiny purple-colored skin spots, sore throat, fever, difficulty breathing, slurred speech and pounding/irregular heartbeat. But that's just me. Perhaps I just need to understand that some people have less control of their bladders than others, and that tranquilizing my 8 year old is pretty drastic when he probably just needs to not have anything to drink before going to bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)